[2024]DLSC17456 • February 7, 2024 • Supreme Court •
THE REPUBLIC vs. EDMUND ADDO
The Applicant, Edmund Addo, was prosecuted at the High Court on three counts of Child Pornography under Section 136b of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772). Following the repeal of Section 136 by Section 98 of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), the Applicant contended that his prosecution was wrongful as the repealed law no longer supported the charges. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed an appeal against his prosecution, affirming the legality of continuing the trial under the repealed provision due to saving provisions in the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792). The Applicant subsequently filed a review application challenging this ruling, alleging fundamental errors of law and miscarriage of justice.
read moreRULING AMADU JSC: BACKGROUND The Applicant was the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.J3/04/2022, intituled THE REPUBLIC VS. EDMUND ADDO. This was an appeal grounded on the principal complaint that, following the repeal of Section 136 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772) by Section 98 of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), his continuous prosecution at the High Court, on the three counts of Child Pornography contrary to Section 136(b) of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008, Act 772 is wrongful in law. For purposes of emphasis and necessary reference, I hereby reproduce the grounds of the appeal argued before the ordinary panel of this court. “That the honourable Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that a person may be convicted on a criminal offence which has been repealed, which holding has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. That the honourable Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Appellant can be convicted on the repealed Section 136.....